On Jul 5, 2007, at 15:27, Robert Burns wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2007, at 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ok, I hope I explained well enough why I think this is not
>>>> obvious at all.
>>>
>>> No. That had nothing to do with <video> and <audio>. Look I have
>>> nothing against those additions to the language. But I can't even
>>> begin to come up with a use-case for <video> and <audio> that
>>> could come close in importance to the need to provide fallback
>>> for still images. And no one else has been able to describe any
>>> pressing need for those either.
>>
>> James explained the reasons for <video> and <audio> in a separate
>> thread.
>
> Yes he explained that video and audio need to be first class
> citizens with fully featured fallback content. And you seem to be
> saying that still images do not deserve to be first class citizens
> in HTML with fully featured fallback content. I don not know how to
> reconcile those two statements.
The difference is the situation from which were are making a
transition from.
Still images with plain text fallback have existed for roughly 15
years natively in HTML. It would have been nice to design the
fallback better 15 years ago, but we can't turn back time.
Video and audio, on the other hand, do not exist natively in HTML, so
when we do introduce them, we have the chance to design the fallback
better.
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fihttp://hsivonen.iki.fi/